"fishing, customs, justice and home affairs would be unshackled from ECJ."
....
blah blah
....
Regarding Justice and Home affairs; people can always take any disputes to the European Court for Human Rights

Ultimately, Brexit comes down to the sovereignty of the UK Courts. This has been the central rally point of Eurosceptism for decades, and it is the central linchpin of the issue. Contrary to how it is portrayed by losers today, the discussions of leaving the EU did not begin with introduction of that NHS campaign bus.

In the interim EFTA-EEA state, if the government finds it necessary, the UK will be able to stimulate areas of growth without EU intervention, and set taxes as they see fit. They can continue the program of decoupling from the EU. It does not need to happen overnight. It could take many years to unravel. But it is the process underway.

May's cabinet better unveil their concrete proposal for a post Brexit UK soon, even if it involves biting the bullet and going to WTO rules, if they aren't willing to accept the freedom of movement provisions that will come with EEA membership.

Re: The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in

If the EU and Project Fear had not taken a harsher rhetorical tone in all this, there would be less reticence to proceed quicker. Now, the longer the UK takes to invoke Article 50, the softer the tone and the more willing the EU to have rational negotiations.

Do you really think that was in any remote way unreasonable in the circumstances? A UK presidency would be wholly inappropriate now.

Until the UK has invoked article 50 it's a full member with all obligations and rights. Until such time (perhaps even until the two-year term has run out) it is illegal to remove them from the queue unless it proposes so itself, as defined in the Council decision taken in 2007.

Correction:
The UK is scheduled for the 2nd half of 2017, not 2016, and they still are.

Ultimately, Brexit comes down to the sovereignty of the UK Courts. This has been the central rally point of Eurosceptism for decades, and it is the central linchpin of the issue. Contrary to how it is portrayed by losers today, the discussions of leaving the EU did not begin with introduction of that NHS campaign bus.

In the interim EFTA-EEA state, if the government finds it necessary, the UK will be able to stimulate areas of growth without EU intervention, and set taxes as they see fit. They can continue the program of decoupling from the EU. It does not need to happen overnight. It could take many years to unravel. But it is the process underway.

"Ultimately, Brexit comes down to the sovereignty of the UK Courts."
Joining EFTA does not solve that issue.
Leaving the EU does not reduce the power of the ECHR.

"In the interim EFTA-EEA state .................. the UK will be able to stimulate areas of growth without EU intervention"
EU member states (we'd still be an EU member state until the end of the post Art. 50 two-year process) must follow EU rules and laws.

"Ultimately, Brexit comes down to the sovereignty of the UK Courts."
Joining EFTA does not solve that issue.
Leaving the EU does not reduce the power of the ECHR.

"In the interim EFTA-EEA state .................. the UK will be able to stimulate areas of growth without EU intervention"
EU member states (we'd still be an EU member state until the end of the post Art. 50 two-year process) must follow EU rules and laws.

Actually, there is some degree of decoupling, and I agree it is not enough. But as I said, it is an interim step towards that direction.

Fine, then the UK should not recognize international law or any kind of international justice like the one in the Hague. It is the US policy too.

International law is fine. But it should be adjudicated by national courts for themselves. It doesn't really work if we tried a case for another country, say Mongolia, with a court and judge in say Sweden. What do they know about life in Mongolia? In a way, that is what occurs in the ECJ, and even worse are signs of how the ECJ courts are being used for activism. Somewhat imperialistic. This offends people quite a bit. I would reject it.

May's cabinet better unveil their concrete proposal for a post Brexit UK soon, even if it involves biting the bullet and going to WTO rules, if they aren't willing to accept the freedom of movement provisions that will come with EEA membership. In this case, no news is worse than bad news.

In difficult situations, the last thing we need is panicky, hasty decision making.

The concrete proposal for post-Brexit is well known, and has been well known for a long time. The concrete proposal is to hold negotiations with the EU. We can't make detailed proposals for exact terms until after preliminary talks have been held to see the lay of the land.

I agree with Mrs Merkel, who appealed to her EU colleagues for "a silent summer" to allow emotions to subside and to create a period of reflection. This is perfect advice. In the meantime, it's EU business as usual. I'm not aware of anything pressing on the table that involves the UK. It's all Eurozone stuff with the Italian and Greek financial crises, plus the migrant resettlement issue that the UK is exempt from.

Seriously, there is nothing to be gained by jumping in with both feet. Already, I can sense emotions settling a little, with a number of senior EU politicians in recent days offering conciliatory remarks on the way forward. Some countries, notably France and Italy, want to take a punitive line for understandable reasons of self-interest. France in particular, where only 35% actively support the EU according to the recent Reuters survey, is terrified that anti-EU feeling will get out of hand, so needs to wave the big stick "pour encourager les autres". Totally understandable but it's another reason to insist on a period of calm reflection.

International law is fine. But it should be adjudicated by national courts for themselves. It doesn't really work if we tried a case for another country, say Mongolia, with a court and judge in say Sweden. What do they know about life in Mongolia? In a way, that is what occurs in the ECJ, and even worse are signs of how the ECJ courts are being used for activism. Somewhat imperialistic. This offends people quite a bit. I would reject it.

The reason for a central court is to have consistency in judgements and a single source of reference.
The last thing you need is multiple conflicting interpretations of international laws.

In the same way there is a Supreme Court in the US to limit individual States from going off in weird directions like, for example, abortion laws.

In the case of the ECJ they adjudicate only EU laws; so only applies to countries within the EU jurisdiction.

The reason for a central court is to have consistency in judgements and a single source of reference.
The last thing you need is multiple conflicting interpretations of international laws.

In the same way there is a Supreme Court in the US to limit individual States from going off in weird directions like, for example, abortion laws.

In the case of the ECJ they adjudicate only EU laws; so only applies to countries within the EU jurisdiction.

And this is were the EU, which was originally proposed to be an economic free trade union, has transformed itself into a political union, and seeks to be a federalised super-state, seeking to eradicate the national states within it. That is not what it was approved for, and hence you see the backlash against it.

And this is were the EU, which was originally proposed to be an economic free trade union, has transformed itself into a political union, and seeks to be a federalised super-state, seeking to eradicate the national states within it. That is not what it was approved for, and hence you see the backlash against it.

Commomwealth countries are probably the best opportunity for the UK as there are already some links and common areas. Of course, this will not happen overnight. Quote;
"Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said a free trade agreement with the UK was a priority, although such treaties are complicated and can be time-consuming.
Australia's recent trade deal with China, for example, took a decade to negotiate."